Roles, functions and evaluative language in PhD examiners’ reports

1. Roles, functions and evaluative language in PhD examiners’ reports Professor Brian Paltridge A/Professor Sue Starfield Dr Robert McMurtrie

2. Outline • The project and our role • Part 1 • Methods, resources, tools, frameworks and theories • SFL lens: APPRAISAL, TRANSITIVITY • Part 2 • 10 roles • institution, supervisor, expert, reporter, peer, viva examiner, evaluator, editor, commentator and examiner • not isomorphic v. clustering • Final comments

4. Roles [T]he real role of the examiner is to judge whether the student has mastered appropriate indeterminate skills and displayed the right indeterminate qualities. (Delamont et al. 2000, 41, emphasis added) Resources from FOCUS sharpen and soften the boundaries between things, grading something that is inherently non-gradable (Martin and Rose, 2007: 46)

5. Previous research : function/roles • Previous research on the language of examiners’ reports • Praising, hedging (Hyland 1998), criticising, sugar coating the pill (Hyland and Hyland 2001) • Previous research on the roles examiners adopt • Responsibilities, duties, job descriptions • Teacher, proof-reader, facilitator, gatekeeper, evaluator, knowledge provider and reader (Hyland and Hyland 2001) • “schizophrenic” role of the teacher when marking assignments Leki (1990: 59)

6. Our contribution: • Identifying various roles • Making the correlation between the linguistic features and the roles • TRANSITIVITY = what is being evaluated • APPRAISAL framework to see how “the what” is being appraised/evaluated • Synthesis of experiential and interpersonal

7. APPRAISAL

8. APPRAISAL

9. APPRAISAL framework • AFFECT: how we feel • dis-satisfaction • un-happiness • in-security • JUDGEMENT: how we evaluate the behaviour of another person • normalcy • capacity • tenacity • veracity • Propriety • APPRECIATION: how we evaluate an object • reaction • impact • quality • composition • balance • complexity • valuation

10. Transitivity framework

11. Role of the PhD thesis

12. Criteria • Does the thesis comprise a coherent investigation of the chosen topic? (APPRECIATION:composition:balance) • Does the thesis deal with a topic of sufficientrange and depth to meet the requirements of the degree? (APPRECIATION:valuation:standard:depth) • Does the thesis make an original contribution to knowledge in its field (APPRECIATION:valuation:standard:original) and contain material suitable for publication in an appropriate academic journal ? (APPRECIATION:valuation:standard:publishable) • Does the thesis meet internationally recognised standards for the conduct and presentation of research in the field? (APPRECIATION:valuation:standard/propriety APPRECIATION:reaction:quality/composition:complexity) • Does the thesis demonstrate both a thorough knowledge of the literature relevant to its subject and general field? (APPRECIATION:valuation:capacity:cognition) and the candidate's ability to exercise critical and analytical judgement of that literature? (covert JUDGEMENT:capacity) • Does the thesis display masteryof appropriate methodology and/or theoretical material? (APPRECIATION:valuation:standard:appropriate)

13. APPRAISAL from criteria • +ve/-ve APPRECIATION:valuation • +ve/-ve APPRECIATION:composition:balance • +ve/-ve APPRECIATION:composition:complexity • +ve/-ve APPRECIATION:reaction:quality • +ve/-ve APPRECIATION:reaction:impact

14. APPRAISAL

15. Transitivity

16. JUDGEMENT v. COVERT JUDGEMENT

17. APPRAISAL

18. ENGAGEMENT • Monoglossic – no room for negotiation (prescriptive) • Heteroglossic – room for negotiation • Other voices – reporting, quoting and paraphrasing, modality • Related to stance, voice, position, hedging

19. Register (style) • Holbrook et al (2012, 3, emphasis added) ‘[e]xaminers write their report in a sequence and style that reflects their discipline, their unique interests and expertise’ • Johnston (1997, 336, emphasis added) ‘showed a wide variation in style’ • Register • Field What is going on (participants and processes) • Tenor What are the social roles of the participants • Mode How is the discourse presented (as formal written or causal conversation)

20. Unit of information: clause • Overview: This is an original, well thought out, methodical, detailed and concise PhD thesis • 5x APPRECIATION (one role – examiner) • The nature of this colour variation is interesting and important • 2x APPRECIATION (two roles – commentator, evaluator)

21. Method

22. Roles

23. Examiner

24. The “real” role of the examiner • APPRECIATION: • Impact: quality • Composition: balance/complexity • Valuation However, because the thesis and the candidate are in a Token/Valued relationship: • COVERT JUDGEMENT • Which is APPRECIATION: normalcy/capacity/tenacity/ veracity/propriety • Passive voice • Nominalisation • Field: recommendations, award, degree, emendations • I recommend that the thesis be accepted and the degreeawarded after amendments have been made

25. Roles

26. Institution • Institution: Does the thesis make an original contribution to knowledge in the field and contain material suitable for publication in an appropriate academic journal? • Examiner: Yes

27. Roles

28. Supervisor • “I felt throughout reading the thesis that my comments on the work were more akin to those of a supervisor rather than that of an examiner.” • The actual role of supervisor: • formative feedback (Holbrook et al 2004, 9) • Gap in knowledge and how to close the gap and improve the thesis. • Dialogic (Kumar and Stracke 2007, 467). • Tenor: close, friendly

29. Supervisor • Why do you think this is the case? Cf. Why is this the case? • … but can you say a little more about why you prefer it and did not use the EM algorithm? • You might also consider some of the earlier work of Valière • A useful start is his 2002 JBR paper (for an overview see Dixon, Donald F. (2002) "Emerging Macromarketing Concepts: From Socrates to Alfred Marshall." Journal of Business Research, 55 (2), 87-95) • You should consider stating here that this piece of research focuses on this subtype • I would make (even) clearer where this emerges from, and take full credit.

30. Comparisons

31. Roles

32. Editor • Prescriptive • xshould be y • P14 loose should be lose • Usually at the end of the report • P60 "to small" should be "too small" • P64 expression in the sentence "In winter 2006..." • p71 "an person" should be "a person" • p73 expression "There have been maximum..." • P76 describe above should be described above • P78 128 input station should be stations • P89 expression "The outgoing solar ..." • P94 Fig 4.2 is referred to before Fig 4.1 • P97 expression "the ELA was with 1810..." • P97 expression 2000 msl has an massive

33. Roles

34. Reporter • Synoptic overview of • Thesis Chapters Sections • This thesis reports the results of what is essentially a single study with boys with ADHD and a control group of normally developing boys • Uses verbal processes, quotes, paraphrases • “These organic compounds are known as siderophores." This sentence suggests that all Fe (III)-binding compounds in seawater are siderophores. • Monoglossic • Several well-known motifs (such as the 5' UTR TATA box) are low complexity elements • To position her or himself in relation to the content • Heteroglossic contracting – closing space down for alternatives • The author has demonstrated that putative toxin/antitoxin pairs can act as such on when found on the chromosomes of M. smegmatis… • Heteroglossic expanding – distancing formulation • In particular, it is claimed (p. 56) that the research in the thesis is based on the work of Tripp and Alsop (1999, 2001), but the details of those studies and their theoretical impact is not fully explained (p.44).

35. Roles

36. Peer • Encouragement/improvement beyond the confines of the thesis • Field: publish, paper, articles • Tenor: close relationship; modality: should, could • X should consider publishing the introduction, in a shortened version, as a review paper • Some of the suggestions listed are identified as not necessary for the thesisbut desirable prior to publication.

37. Roles

38. Evaluator • Evaluation beyond the criteria: • APPRECIATION and JUDGEMENT (overt) • No intrusion on the message, i.e., “I” • She is extremely passionate about blogging (+ve JUDGEMENT:normalcy) • This is an early study opening up a very complexsystem

39. Roles

40. Expert • “Examinersshould be suitably qualified to undertake the task. Suitably qualified examiners: preferably have a PhD (or if not, some other higher degree but with appropriate research experience at a high level.” • Authoritative declaratives • Also direct mass balance measurements cannot a priori claim to exactly catch the end of the ablation season. • Call into doubt their expertise • The statistical analysis seems sound, although I am not an expert in statistics.

41. Expert • Examiners exert their knowledge in the field in question and in terms of the genre/conventions of a thesis. • Claims must be evidence based • A strong structure allows readers to know where to look for particular information and makes the reader more confident that all important information has been included… • Distinguishing between reporter and expert when there is no attribution: • Page 15 Free rotation of carbons adjacent to single bond in lycopene polyene carbon chain occurs only in those bonds which are not conjugated…

42. Imperatives / roles

43. Roles

44. Commentator • According to the OED, a comment is ‘a remark expressing an opinion or reaction […] especially of a critical nature’. • Not prescriptive, formative or summative • Explicit intrusion on the message “I” • Formulaic expressions, attitude markers, personal musings • What on earth has Donald Rumsfeld to do with marketing (quoted twice). • I wonder if reciprocal blasts were used,… • AFFECT, COVERT AFFECT • I worry (-ve AFFECT:insecurity) about your mention of analysing relations among concepts • This is an interesting (+ve APPRECIATION:reaction:impact)[…] thesis • This thesis interested me (+ve COVERT AFFECT:satisfaction)

45. Realised as grammar: Third conditional

46. 3rd v. 2nd conditional/roles

47. Other multimodal realisations • From the perspective of future work – 3rd conditional is formative = peer role • Marked punctuation • Very interesting!! • P55. What is DRE?? • I'm curious -???

48. Roles

49. Viva examiner • Actual primary role: to ask questions at the viva. • The role ↘ interrogative (technical term F^S) • Prepare for the viva voce. • Many types of questions – not all viva examiners • Field: • Thus, these questions are largely unanswered in the thesis and are exactly the questions I would like to discuss with the candidate during an oral exam.

50. Different types of questions